For anyone who is angry by the Supreme Court's decision, I have simple question that I have yet heard an answer to. All religious references aside, how do justify it being Constitutionally correct for the federal government to force a private individual to fund the sex life of another individual?
July 2, 2014 at 3:09 p.m.
@gdog: In their wildest dreams, I don't think the Founding Fathers would ever believe that one day the federal government would become so overreaching that it would pass a law requiring all private businesses to provide birth control and abortions so their workers could have all the sex they want without any consequences. (Yes, I'm aware birth control pills weren't around in the 1700's) Although, I completely agree with the Supreme Court's ruling on 1st Amendment grounds, am I the only one who sees how completely absurd this law was in the first place? I guess forgot that part of the Bill of Rights stating all Americans have the right to free birth control, and that each employer is responsible to ensure that his or her employees are free from any unexpected consequences of a drunken one-night stand. What ever happen to people taking responsibility for themselves and buying their own birth control. Seriously, are there really people out their with full time jobs, that are still so strapped for cash that they can't afford a $1 condom or $30 a month for birth control pills? (And, if you are one of these people who are struggling to make ends meet because your spending so much on birth control, stop having intercourse!! Abstinence is completely free, and it is not as if sex is essential to stay alive, like food or water.) Personally, I don't feel the federal government should be requiring an employer to provide health insurance, period. (I guess I missed the right to free health insurance in the Constitution, too.) If you don't like the health insurance your employer providers, pay for your own insurance or find a new job. If you can't find a new job, start your own business with the best insurance policy money can buy.
June 30, 2014 at 6:45 p.m.
For anyone who thinks that allowing the government to have more control over healthcare than they already do will benefit the country, I have a firsthand example of government inefficiency that may make you think twice. I happen to work for the federal government (as an essential employee who did not just get back from a two week vacation), and today I attempted to check my government email which nothing is ever sent too, but if I don't log in monthly, it will add $200 to our national debt to get it set up again. I attempted to login to all 10 government computers (which I'm sure were bought for at least $3000 a piece). Seven of them froze up when I tried to login and the other 3 were so slow I gave up after an hour and a half. When I attempted to find the computer tech (at 11:30 am), he had left for weekend. Apparently after a two week vacation (which I'm sure he'll be paid for), I guess working until past noon on Friday is too much to ask. Just food for though for anyone who believes somehow government involvement in healthcare will make the system more efficient and less expensive.
October 18, 2013 at 3:46 p.m.
I always find it amusing that many of the pothead libs who argue "drug testing is an invasion of my privacy" are the same people that believe its fine for the government to limit how much fat is in a hamburger, how larger of a soft drink you can buy, or what kind of car is "green" enough. What hypocrites.
June 11, 2012 at 10:04 p.m.
Biden and Obama always fail to mention that Romney didn't even work at Bain Capital when this steel mill closed. Additionally, Bain Capital bought and invested millions in the plant. Unlike the government who can just print money and bail places out, Bain Capital is a business and if the plant was not profitable it had no choice but to close it. Anyway, I bet the plant was in these dire circumstances to begin with due to insain demands from unions and the "green" nuts at the EPA.
May 18, 2012 at 7:34 p.m.
Choice lady - "Y'town and the Valley cannot afford another president who caters to paper traders - the people who killed this area. "
Unions, the EPA, and the Dems who have run the local government for the past 50 years killed the manufacturing jobs in this area. These are all groups the current President fully supports.
May 16, 2012 at 11:41 p.m.
Seriously Freeatlast, only in Youngstown will people complain about a school fixing old wooden bleachers and therefore cleaning up their community. By the way, the school only paid $8950, the rest was donated. I bet the money the school used was from a fund allocated for facility improvement anyways. Nevertheless, this tiny amount (in terms of the school's multi-million budget) is not near enough to even pay a part-time bus drivers' salary.
April 19, 2012 at 11:48 p.m.
I still don't under where people like Miss Flute and other libs get this entitlement mentality. Free goverment housing, free goverment food, free goverment check every month, free goverment helthcare, free goverment transportation, now legistation to ensure free contraceptives. (Yes, I understand the federal government isn't directly using taxpayer money for Miss Flute's $3000 sex-habits. Instead they're forcing a private company to buy a product against their will) Where does it end for these people? Under this mentality can I lobby to Congress to manidate my health insurance should pay for my vactions because all this work and actually paying taxes is endangering my "mental health"?
March 12, 2012 at 1:19 a.m.
Although Rush maybe didn't use the most tactful words to describe Miss Fluke, (Who by the way is NOT a current law student at Georgetown as Vindy reports, but is actually a feminist activist who works at Georgetown and graduated years ago.), I think he describe her lifestyle fairly well. An woman who claims to spend $ 3000 on contraception and is having financial problems because she is having so much sex in my mind is a Sl__. Why do people feel they are entitled by law for free contraceptives from their issuance in the first place? What ever happened to people taking some responsibility and paying for their own $1 condom? Although sex is pleasurable and needed for human reproduction, it is not essential for staying alive, unlike heart conditions, diabetes, and other things that health issuance covers. Using this logic, should the federal government mandate that issuance companies pay for everyone's food, since food is essential for life?
March 8, 2012 at 5:42 p.m.
I can't believe we have come to this point. Some Americans actually beleive that under the Constitution, they are entitled to free birth control. Someone please state which article of the Constitution allows the President and Congess to manidate that all employers must buy a any product (insurance in this case) or face huge fines. What ever happened happened to the day where people had showed some self control, and if they wanted to engage in sex they bought their own birth control?
February 11, 2012 at 2:56 p.m.